CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hey:
Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.
Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.
Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.
Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.
Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:
If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.
In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.
If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.
The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.
How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:
And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.
Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.
What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them every time before they ate? Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?
In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.
Buried with Him in Baptism?
After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:
"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."
Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.
First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.
Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?
Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.
"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).
Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.
The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.
Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.
But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.
First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.
Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.
Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.
Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.
As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.
That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.
Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.
Blessings,
-CH
Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.
Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.
Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.
Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.
Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:
If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.
In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.
If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.
The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.
How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:
And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.
Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.
What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them every time before they ate? Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?
In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.
Buried with Him in Baptism?
After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:
"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."
Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.
First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.
Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?
Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.
"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).
Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.
The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.
Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.
But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.
First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.
Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.
Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.
Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.
As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.
That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.
Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.
Blessings,
-CH
Last edited:
